fossa_get_sbom_sharing

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds context about the meaning of the sections and the two-sided nature of linked_organizations, going beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Consists of three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by essential clarifications. No redundant information; every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and annotations provide safety hints, the description sufficiently covers the tool's behavior, including how to use it in conjunction with fossa_share_sbom_revision. No major gaps identified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining section options ('share_requests' vs 'linked_organizations') and the project_locator as an optional filter. It does not specify the exact format for project_locator, but the semantic meaning is clear.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('SBOM revisions shared with others' or 'linked organizations'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like fossa_share_sbom_revision by focusing on listing sharing details rather than performing the share action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly explains the two sections and that project_locator optionally filters share_requests. It further states that the sharedOrganizationId from linked_organizations is required by fossa_share_sbom_revision, implying usage before sharing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.